Lol, you're a riot. Some of the things you say make me wonder if you're not trolling. Look at the date on that article, Einstein. A 7th CPU core has been unlocked for games on X1 since then.
Lol, you're a riot. Some of the things you say make me wonder if you're not trolling. Look at the date on that article, Einstein. A 7th CPU core has been unlocked for games on X1 since then.
You're dumbass also. Xbone's CPU has 9% higher clock compared to PS4's CPU across all cores and that's will remain always. That's why i wrote 9% before. You think because of that extra 7th CPU core Xbone's CPU power jumps to 25%? LOL! Keep dreaming! Cheers! Keep spinning!
Lol, you're a riot. Some of the things you say make me wonder if you're not trolling. Look at the date on that article, Einstein. A 7th CPU core has been unlocked for games on X1 since then.
You're dumbass also. Xbone's CPU has 9% higher clock compared to PS4's CPU and that's will remain always. That's why i wrote 9% before. You think because of that extra 7th CPU core Xbone CPU power jumps to 25%? LOL! Keep dreaming! Cheers!
I never said 25%, somebody else did. I haven't bothered to work out exactly what it comes out to but I knew right away that 9% is absolutely not correct when you figure that 7 CPU cores are being used for games on X1 and 6 are being used for games on PS4.
It's hilarious though that no matter how many times you get proven wrong on multiple points you just keep stampeding forward as though the shit never happened. :)
Lol, you're a riot. Some of the things you say make me wonder if you're not trolling. Look at the date on that article, Einstein. A 7th CPU core has been unlocked for games on X1 since then.
You're dumbass also. Xbone's CPU has 9% higher clock compared to PS4's CPU and that's will remain always. That's why i wrote 9% before. You think because of that extra 7th CPU core Xbone CPU power jumps to 25%? LOL! Keep dreaming! Cheers!
You need to go back to school son, 9% higher operating frequency plus going from 6 to 7 cores is a 16.8% core increase; hence "roughly 25%"....
Lol, you're a riot. Some of the things you say make me wonder if you're not trolling. Look at the date on that article, Einstein. A 7th CPU core has been unlocked for games on X1 since then.
You're dumbass also. Xbone's CPU has 9% higher clock compared to PS4's CPU and that's will remain always. That's why i wrote 9% before. You think because of that extra 7th CPU core Xbone CPU power jumps to 25%? LOL! Keep dreaming! Cheers!
You need to go back to school son, 9% higher operating frequency plus going from 6 to 7 cores is a 15.38% core increase; hence "nearly 25%"....
Do you want me to draw you a diagram?
Well, there ya go then. :) I do think I've heard though that it's 80% of the 7th core that's being used for games and not the entire thing so that probably drops the percentage slightly but still your number is much, much more accurate than imt558's. But then again, he hasn't had a freaking clue what he's been talking about throughout this conversation, lol.
Lol, you're a riot. Some of the things you say make me wonder if you're not trolling. Look at the date on that article, Einstein. A 7th CPU core has been unlocked for games on X1 since then.
You're dumbass also. Xbone's CPU has 9% higher clock compared to PS4's CPU and that's will remain always. That's why i wrote 9% before. You think because of that extra 7th CPU core Xbone CPU power jumps to 25%? LOL! Keep dreaming! Cheers!
You need to go back to school son, 9% higher operating frequency plus going from 6 to 7 cores is a 15.38% core increase; hence "nearly 25%"....
Do you want me to draw you a diagram?
Well, there ya go then. :) I do think I've heard though that it's 80% of the 7th core that's being used for games and not the entire thing so that probably drops the percentage slightly but still your number is much, much more accurate than imt558's. But then again, he hasn't had a freaking clue what he's been talking about throughout this conversation, lol.
Regardless 80% or not, it's a more powerful CPU with more available resources, if a game were CPU intensive the PlayStation 4 would cripple first and perform considerably worse, hence The Witcher 3 and Assassin's Creed Unity.
Regardless 80% or not, it's a more powerful CPU with more available resources, if a game were CPU intensive the PlayStation 4 would cripple first and perform considerably worse, hence The Witcher 3 and Assassin's Creed Unity.
Regardless 80% or not, it's a more powerful CPU with more available resources, if a game were CPU intensive the PlayStation 4 would cripple first and perform considerably worse, hence The Witcher 3 and Assassin's Creed Unity.
Ass Creed Unity? Nope!
Loading Video...
It still falls behind the Xbox One, don't ever speak to me again.
Lol, you're a riot. Some of the things you say make me wonder if you're not trolling. Look at the date on that article, Einstein. A 7th CPU core has been unlocked for games on X1 since then.
You're dumbass also. Xbone's CPU has 9% higher clock compared to PS4's CPU and that's will remain always. That's why i wrote 9% before. You think because of that extra 7th CPU core Xbone CPU power jumps to 25%? LOL! Keep dreaming! Cheers!
You need to go back to school son, 9% higher operating frequency plus going from 6 to 7 cores is a 15.38% core increase; hence "nearly 25%"....
Do you want me to draw you a diagram?
Well, there ya go then. :) I do think I've heard though that it's 80% of the 7th core that's being used for games and not the entire thing so that probably drops the percentage slightly but still your number is much, much more accurate than imt558's. But then again, he hasn't had a freaking clue what he's been talking about throughout this conversation, lol.
Regardless 80% or not, it's a more powerful CPU with more available resources, if a game were CPU intensive the PlayStation 4 would cripple first and perform considerably worse, hence The Witcher 3 and Assassin's Creed Unity.
Ditto. The PS4 is in the weird position of being asked to do more with its CPU despite it having less CPU resources to work with. And that's where many of these dropped frames are coming from.
games like ACU and GTAV remester started out being smoother on Xbox One. Its the reason why some don't know where they actually stand at the moment after patches. ACU pretty much even now, and GTA went the other way, its the ps4 that has gone ahead on the fps side aswell. There are also some suprises like Dying Light and Batman that actually run better on ps4, albeit batman only effected by screen tears on xbox one. That and add alot of what people would call gpu bounds games which pretty much seems to be most games are at makes it hard to give Xbox One victory on the fps side of thing. However this is an area where its almost should be expected that Xbox one running at lower res should pretty much at least own. The weired thing though if you truly go digging through this battle don't be surprise to see a marginal victory for ps4. If lets say every thing go doesn't matter if gpu bound or cpu bound.
Yeah! 3-4 fps differnce are 25% more CPU more power! LOL!
That game preceded a 7th CPU core being opened up on X1 and PS4 does have the better GPU so there's multiple variables at play. The point is that the lower framerate is almost certainly because of PS4's CPU. I haven't been trying to say that X1 is better than PS4 because of the CPU difference. PS4's hardware is better. X1 is more properly balanced though. But PS4's CPU is a problem. Devs keep making games for it at resolutions that its GPU is fine with but that the CPU can't handle. Yes, you're getting higher resolutions on PS4 because of its better GPU but they're coming at the cost of dropped frames because it's a stretch for PS4's CPU to do complex gaming at 1080p.
Advanced Warfare was 900p on Xbox One so I'm not surprise by this and I own Advanced Warfare on Xbox One and was impress what I saw. Single player was really good to me.
AW was 1360x1080.
This one is 900p but DF say it drops even lower 1360x900p which is lower than native 900p.
@nyadc said:
No it wasn't, god the misinformation and ignorance people spread around this website is deplorable... It used a dynamic resolution scaler which went from 1920x1080 to 1360x1080 if called for in intense sequences where frame drops would have taken place, this is why Advanced Warfare performed better on the Xbox One than the PlayStation 4 which was locked to 1920x1080 and had drops.
Do you people research fucking anything before flapping your jaws?
It never was basically 1920x1080p when nothing happen,as soon as shot were fire the game drop to 1360x1080p and online was 1360x1080p lock.
And online both performance the same while the PS4 still maintain the resolution edge.
And you don't have to get so anal,this one drops under 900p for the beta.
@Wickerman777 said:
A lot of DF articles I see have the PS4 versions of games dropping frames more severely. That extra resolution is coming at a cost. Seems likely to me that the GPU can handle it but its CPU is what is causing the problems.
That notion was destroy already..
Project cars.
PS4. 1080p Temporal AA up to 16 FPS slower uses 6 CPU cores at 1.6ghz.
XB1. 900p No temporal AA up to 16 FPS slower uses 7 cores at 1.75ghz.
Probably the PS4 version is driven to certain frame level and is leave there as good enough while on xbox one they have to optimize more to get those same frames,so probably they spend more time on getting the xbox one faster,both GTA5 and ACU got patch which basically put both versions even so CPU wasn't the problem.
@nyadc said:
They need to do something, and it seems like they're too proud of the 1080p buzz going around to scale back the resolution on games that the console clearly can't handle, as if 900p is going to destroy their image when the reality is it would give their users a better gameplay experience. It's obvious they haven't overclocked their CPU like Microsoft because their design does not allow it, the console would overheat, and in terms of software utilization they probably can't figure out a way for their system to function without two dedicated cores, they're not a software company.
Yeah it can't handle it is the reason why Batman is smoother on PS4 even that the game is 1080p on PS4 and 900p on xbox one,not tell me COD is more CPU intensive than Batman Arkham knight.
The PS4 allow for the CPU to be over clock just because sony doesn't do it,doesn't mean it can't be done,that clock speed is not killing the PS4.in fact running games the PS4 is cooler than the XB1 even that it uses more watts,and has an internal PSU which also produce more heat.
So stop pulling shit out of your buns B4X.
@nyadc said:
Project Cars was a low budget game developed by people who EA no longer wanted so they decided to do their own thing, it's a one off performance anomaly no doubt from shoddy development and doesn't reflect the actual stance of the PlayStation 4 or Xbox One.
Trusting their development of that game is foolish, also it's CPU heavy based upon what? If it were a CPU intensive game it would run better on the Xbox One at 1600x900 than 1920x1080 on the PlayStation 4, the power disparity is less than the resolution rendering differences. At 1600x900 the Xbox One should outperform any same multi-platform game on the PlayStation 4 at 1920x1080 if they're both properly developed for.
Hahahahaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa...
Man Blackace you really are something,is this king of bullshit ass argument what give you away so both officially,B4X and NyaDC are your account...hahaha
I know because no one make such bullshit argument and pathetic excuses as Blackace,.
1-First Project cars been low budget or not mean shit,yeah what about Tomb Raider,sniper elite,BF4 and the many others are those anomalies to.? Batman arkham Knight is not low budget and is smoother on PS4 and tears a hell of allot less than the xbox one version and is 1080p vs 900p.
Is CPU heavy based on this,look how the i3 bottle neck a 750ti,is rare to find a 750Ti been bottleneck by an i3 dude.
There is the team who state the game was draw call heavy that will put you as CPU bound as you can be.
By the way Project Cars is about the only game out using the xbox one 7th CPU core,basically no other game use it not even the witcher 3,so if anything i say is more advance when it comes to CPU usage than most games out there on xbox one if not all.
Batman Arkham Knight is 1080p and is smoother on PS4 and is not low budget.
Your arguments are pathetic.
@nyadc said:
Explain it to all of us, I can't wait to hear your laugh inducing post as to why you think this game is "CPU heavy". If it were a CPU intensive game the PlayStation 4 would cripple far before the Xbox One, not only is the CPU less capable in terms of operating frequency, the Xbox One has access to another CPU core...
Your post is a paradox.
P.S. Racing AI is very simple and limited, they have pathing and interaction based algorithms, that's about it.
Look up fake hermit and you see why is CPU heavy,the xbox one uses 7 core on Project cars the PS4 use 6 you know what that means.?
It means CPU will not stop the PS4 from owning the xbox one,the PS4 is not CPU bound on that GPU.
@Wickerman777 said:
Dude, why do you keep ignoring the point he brings up about the CPU in X1 being clocked higher and having access to an additional core? If the game is CPU-heavy as you say your assertions that the X1 version is inferior because of that makes no sense when PS4's CPU cores are running slower and there's only 6 of them dedicated to games vs X1's 7.
Because regardless of been CPU heavy the CPU inside the PS4 is enough to drive the performance over the xbox one as simple as that,the xbox one uses 7 cores on Project cars and is slower,there is something you people are missing the xbox one is not a true HSA design,it has 2 memory address and when the Data is on the ESRAM the CPU can't see it.
On Ps4 that is not the case the PS4 CPU and GPU can see the same data at the same time all the time,the xbox one has cumbersome memory structure and it doesn't work on its favor,so what could have been just a 1080p to 900p gap turned into 1080p vs 900p + extra temporal AA on PS4 + up to 16 FPS faster.
The speed difference is minimal on PC not even enough for a a 1 or 2, 150mhz is nothing the xbox one has bigger problems.
tormentos, I'm not even sure what point you're trying to make. Nobody disputes that PS4 has around a 40% GPU edge on X1. If you're trying to convince us: stop! We already know. But X1 also has around a 20%-25% (I'm estimating because I'm too lazy to work out the precise number) CPU edge on PS4 ... currently anyway. It could change if Sony successfully tinkers with it. Yes, a 40% GPU edge absolutely does trump a 25% CPU edge overall. I never claimed otherwise. But it's absurd to suggest that PS4's CPU deficit is never, ever a problem with any games. I know it isn't with all of them but it's going to be with some. The notion that a 25% or even 9% deficit in one given area, and an important one at that, is never going to cause you problems in any circumstance stretches credulity to say the least.
As far as Witcher 3 not using the 7th CPU core in X1 goes I suppose that could be true but if so it makes little sense. They've been updating the hell out of the game and recently too. Why wouldn't they turn it on when it's there and available? Could be Kinect-related I suppose but if they're not using it and that's why that's a silly decision. That game runs several fps worse on PS4 than it does X1 in multiple parts (And I ain't even talking about the cutscenes) and I don't believe it's because of the GPUs. PS4's GPU should be able to handle it at 1080p as well as X1 does it at 900p. But it doesn't. Something is going on with that game and my guess is the CPU has a lot to do with it.
tormentos, I'm not even sure what point you're trying to make. Nobody disputes that PS4 has around a 40% GPU edge on X1. If you're trying to convince us: stop! We already know. But X1 also has around a 20%-25% (I'm estimating because I'm too lazy to work out the precise number) CPU edge on PS4 ... currently anyway. It could change if Sony successfully tinkers with it. Yes, a 40% GPU edge absolutely does trump a 25% CPU edge overall. I never claimed otherwise. But it's absurd to suggest that PS4's CPU deficit is never, ever a problem with any games. I know it isn't with all of them but it's going to be with some. The notion that a 25% or even 9% deficit in one given area, and an important one at that, is never going to cause you problems in any circumstance stretches credulity to say the least.
As far as Witcher 3 not using the 7th CPU core in X1 goes I suppose that could be true but if so it makes little sense. They've been updating the hell out of the game and recently too. Why wouldn't they turn it on when it's there and available? Could be Kinect-related I suppose but if they're not using it and that's why that's a silly decision. That game runs several fps worse on PS4 than it does X1 in multiple parts (And I ain't even talking about the cutscenes) and I don't believe it's because of the GPUs. PS4's GPU should be able to handle it at 1080p as well as X1 does it at 900p. But it doesn't. Something is going on with that game and my guess is the CPU has a lot to do with it.
You are not understanding me.
I am not talking about the GPU difference.
The XBO has 9% CPU advantage over the PS4 CPU at 6 cores both,that doesn't even amount to 2 frames difference on a stronger CPU line,on that Jaguar even less the GPU power achievable by the CPU on the PS4 is far greater than the xbox one GPU peak power and that is the problem.
Since launch there have been games that not only have higher resolution but also faster frames,the xbox one could handle maybe a few more draw calls than the PS4 but if the GPU isn't able to handle them there is no point,and this is what also The Witcher 3 developer state,pushing more triangles and not been able to shade them defeat the purpose.
I think the real problem is that the xbox one CPU advantage will never materialise because 1 is to small and 2 because the xbox one has some troublesome hardware setup which a is problem on top of the power deficiency.
Yes but that could be do to the game been less optimized on PS4,we saw this on ACU and GTA5 and both got patch which speed frames on PS4 latter on.
Project cars uses the xbox one 7th core in fact it is use to speed frames,and still is slower than the PS4 version,what this game imply is that the CPU difference will not stop the GPU on the PS4 from beating the xbox one in more than one part.
For example Project Cars has higher,resolution,frames and better AA on PS4 that is a huge gap,maybe the game wasn't set with any parity in mind and was make to how well each console performed.
There are 2 gaps actually between both consoles,the one in hardware GPU CPU and the one in memory structure and setup,the PS4 is a more straight forward design the xbox one is cumbersome so this can also add to the gap,problem is that one is also here to stay ESRAM will not get bigger.
i really dont give a ****. 720 is a bit of an outrage, sure... but has anyone actually done the math od the different between 1080 and 900? It's not vast depths, lol, but only a measly 180p. as long as the online is a solid 60fps on dedicated servers, there shouldnt be any problems.
i really dont give a ****. 720 is a bit of an outrage, sure... but has anyone actually done the math od the different between 1080 and 900? It's not vast depths, lol, but only a measly 180p. as long as the online is a solid 60fps on dedicated servers, there shouldnt be any problems.
Well, it's 600,000 pixels ... pretty big numbers difference. But when I see it the difference doesn't seem as big as the number ... but there is a difference.
My primary console is PS4 and I'm a PC gamer but from what I remember Call of Duty Ghosts ran more smoothly on Xbone than PS4 and yes i've played them both just to compare my two consoles. I couldn't tell the difference between 1080p v 900p v 720p but smoothness is definately something I can spot immediately. Cod is better on Xbone...
I love watching people like tormentos spent so much effort trying to justify their 180p advantage, if res and FPS meant that much play the thing on PC, the superior version
My primary console is PS4 and I'm a PC gamer but from what I remember Call of Duty Ghosts ran more smoothly on Xbone than PS4 and yes i've played them both just to compare my two consoles. I couldn't tell the difference between 1080p v 900p v 720p but smoothness is definately something I can spot immediately. Cod is better on Xbone...
That's a problem on several games. Witcher 3 is similar, has the higher resolution on PS4 but more fluid framerate on X1. I haven't gotten it yet but it's a game I'm definitely getting and I want the higher resolution but not at that framerate. I keep checking eurogamer's articles about the updates to see if PS4's versions' framerate has been improved but it ain't happened yet. If it doesn't happen I'll be getting the X1 version despite the lower resolution. Fluidity is more important.
Which brings me to another point: Why the hell do developers almost always pick graphics over framerate? A steady framerate is hugely important but so many of them appear to think it isn't. I can understand drops in games that are 60 fps most of the time but when shooting for 30 fps and you find yourself not hitting it consistently scale down the graphics of your damned game! Yes, I like nice visuals as much as the next guy but not at the expense of getting them all choppy and jerky looking.
i really dont give a ****. 720 is a bit of an outrage, sure... but has anyone actually done the math od the different between 1080 and 900? It's not vast depths, lol, but only a measly 180p. as long as the online is a solid 60fps on dedicated servers, there shouldnt be any problems.
Well, it's 600,000 pixels ... pretty big numbers difference. But when I see it the difference doesn't seem as big as the number ... but there is a difference.
true. there is a difference. but when you look at the comments, all that difference of 180p means is that if you are okay with it, you are a "Lem" and a desperate liar that tries to spin stories and shift focus. Thats ridiculous.
i really dont give a ****. 720 is a bit of an outrage, sure... but has anyone actually done the math od the different between 1080 and 900? It's not vast depths, lol, but only a measly 180p. as long as the online is a solid 60fps on dedicated servers, there shouldnt be any problems.
Well, it's 600,000 pixels ... pretty big numbers difference. But when I see it the difference doesn't seem as big as the number ... but there is a difference.
true. there is a difference. but when you look at the comments, all that difference of 180p means is that if you are okay with it, you are a "Lem" and a desperate liar that tries to spin stories and shift focus. Thats ridiculous.
The lemmings, cows, blah blah blah ... thing around here is retarded. And Xbox owners sure got the short end of the stick on that one cuz that's the most insulting one of the bunch by far. And cows ... what the hell does that even mean? I never use the terms. Good ol' fashioned fanboy is miles better.
Log in to comment